Police officers barged into a woman’s home because they wanted to arrest the owner because of the length of the front lawn. A tenant answered the door and recorded the rude, obscenity-spewing cops making demands and entering her home, despite the fact that she wasn’t even the person listed on the warrant.

The incident occurred on May 29, 2013. Robyn Ruckman discovered that no less than five police officers were waiting outside. Two were from the Turtle Creek Police Department, two were from East Pittsburgh Police, and one was from the Allegheny County Housing Authority.

As Ms. Ruckman answered the door, police treated her rudely and started making demands. She told them her name but that wasn’t good enough. They wanted her to produce ID.

“You know, I don’t even see a nametag,” Ruckman told the lead officer.

“I don’t give a sh*t what you see. Go get your ID,” the officer growled. “You see that?! It says POLICE.”

After asking them to stay outside, officers barged into her home.

“No, I can’t wait here, because I think you’re trying to avoid us,” one of the officers said.

Police were performing a 12-hour roundup of the town’s code violators, such as those accused of having uncut grass.

Ms. Ruckman got off easy after she proved her identity; she was just a tenant. The team of officers had been sent after her landlord, Roben Edwards, who had fallen on hard times as she fell ill and struggled with ovarian cancer.

East Pittsburgh Police Chief Lori Payne defended the officers, saying that entering the home is necessary because the woman might have “come back with a shotgun.”

* * * * *

FOLLOW-UP: No officers were fired or disciplined following the incident.

Mayor Adam Forgie approved of the officer’s actions and said they behaved appropriately.

“I think my men did exactly what they were trained to do,” he said. “They were looking out for their own safety and their partners’ safety.”

3: Police warn complainant that said livestock must be removed, complainant acknowledges warning.

4: Complainant, on at least one occasion, fails to maintain control of said livestock, allowing it to roam freely throughout neighborhood and onto grounds of elementary school adjacent to property.

5: Police receive multiple complaints pertaining to said livestock.

6: After complainant refuses to comply with law, Police act in accordance with law and slaughter aforementioned livestock.

I fail to see how any malfeasance has been perpetrated here, except by the woman who kept poultry on her property in knowing violation of the law and then whined about it when this had consequences for her.

the question is: does that make it okay for police to kill animals instead of removing them from the location and giving them to animal control and/or a shelter that can legally house them?

I'm sure everyone breaks at least 20 laws daily. What if it had something to do with your children, and instead of them just fining you or taking you to court until you obliged, they just kill them instead?

What if accused shoplifters had their arms cut off by police? What if people who violate CARB laws *coughjoecough* have their vehicles repossessed without trial and crushed by police?

Everyone is presumed innocent. If she's found in violation, she has every right to take it to court first. The killing of livestock serves no purpose or justice. I have no problem with them being taken from the grounds if that's a violation, but they should go to animal control, not to animal heaven. It's not the police officer's decision to make.

the reaccuring theme here is that you believe that criminals deserve unfair treatment from others. that they dont have the same rights as you--not the same protections of property, speech, due process, anything.

the question is: does that make it okay for police to kill animals instead of removing them from the location and giving them to animal control and/or a shelter that can legally house them?

If the local ordinance which prohibits the keeping of livestock within city limits prescribes this method of remediation, or no other ordinance prohibits it, then yes, that makes it ok.

If the ordinance specifies that the animals must be removed to a shelter, or another ordinance prohibits the beheading of fowl by police with a shovel, then no, it's not ok, and the police officer in question would be subject to sanction.

Frankly, I can't find a copy of the municipal codes for the city of Atwater, Minnesota online. But it sounds to me like your beef is with the Atwater city council, not the Atwater PD.

Also, a followup article. Apparently, the mother was known to the community to be somewhat of a pest, and the townspeople are actually rallying in support of the police in this one:

ATWATER, Minn. -- A vocal crowd crammed into the Atwater City Council chambers Wednesday night in support of the small west-central Minnesota town's police chief, who received statewide and even national media attention this week for killing a boy's pet chicken that was running loose in the homeowner's back yard.

Many at the meeting not only expressed strong opposition to allowing chickens in town but also voiced support for Berger and the action he took to "dispatch" the chicken being kept against city ordinance.

Much of the criticism wasn't directed at Berger for decapitating the chicken, but against homeowner Ashley Turnbull, who filed the complaint against the police chief.

"This is nothing more than bullying," screamed one woman, referring to Turnbull's complaint.

Others said Turnbull caused the problem by having chickens in the first place, not removing them when police warned her to do so and for letting the hen escape its pen.

Berger also presented the council with a draft of a proposed ordinance that would allow residents to keep up to five chickens.

The council is expected to discuss the ordinance in October.

See, that's how you actually solve problems, not by bitching about them to strangers on a car forum. Note that it's actually the police chief (Berger) who is trying to solve the problem here, not the mother.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Braineack

What if it had something to do with your children, and instead of them just fining you or taking you to court until you obliged, they just kill them instead?

It seems foolish to equate the value of the life of a chicken with the value of the life of a 5 year old boy, even a very bratty one. (Typical liberal thinking...)

That said, a local ordinance which specifies summary execution for offenses relating to minors in the custody of the accused would be in violation of the due process clause of the US constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Braineack

What if accused shoplifters had their arms cut off by police?

Shoplifting falls under the criminal code, rather than administrative law. As such, presuming that the accused were afforded a trial, I'd have no problem with this punishment. From a legal standpoint, it's little different from any other routine deprivation of liberty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Braineack

What if people who violate CARB laws *coughjoecough* have their vehicles repossessed without trial and crushed by police?

That already happens. Think before you ask these questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Braineack

Everyone is presumed innocent. If she's found in violation, she has every right to take it to court first.

No, she doesn't.

This shows me that you don't really understand how the legal system in the US works. She has a right to trial if she is accused of a criminal offense which may result in her being deprived of life or liberty. (eg: jail, execution, community service, etc.) You don't have the right to trial when you are accused of non-criminal statutory violations for which the punishment is not a deprivation of liberty. As an example, if you ignore a bunch of parking tickets, then your car may be towed, impounded, and auctioned. No trial required.

That said, it sounds to me like she did in fact have an opportunity to protest the warning given to her by the police a week before the chicken was killed, but she chose to ignore it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Braineack

the reaccuring theme here is that you believe that criminals deserve unfair treatment from others. that they dont have the same rights as you--not the same protections of property, speech, due process, anything.

You are correct in that criminals do not deserve the same protections of property and speech- that concept is inherent in the foundational idea of a criminal justice system. I'm not sure how that's relevant here, since no criminal conduct is being alleged.

Actually, in criminal law it is.
And I assumed that is the reason that I saw very many laws underwritten with "intent may be presumed."
I can't remember the cases right off but it has been a rare thing that persons got off in court or appeal for sake of there was not ample opportunity for citizens to become aware of new law.

So, in effect it is only almost always correct.

Also, it has pissed me off that the things where intent may be presumed is interpreted by many in the criminal justice system to preclude allowing to try to demonstrate lack of intent. - Folks even much misunderstand a notion about proving a negative ....

========
Comes to think - it was not long ago that I read of a judge threw out a case because the wording of the law/ordinance made it incomprehensible to mere mortals. (I forget his wording but it was on such a level)

This is true, and one reason why a strong and effective judiciary is such a critical element of the US-style model of government, as a check against poor legislative action. There have been numerous cases (Cheek v. US, Barlow v. US, etc) in which the court ruled that in a specific, narrowly defined situation, some element of ignorance of a law, or of the law itself being incomprehensible, was sufficient to form part of a defense.

But these are exceptions to the rule, and are outnumbered by many ordered of magnitude by cases in which ignorance of the law is not upheld as a defensible position.

In Latin, the term is Ignorantia juris non excusat, meaning "ignorance of the law does not excuse."

(9) Culpability as to Illegality of Conduct. Neither knowledge nor recklessness or negligence as to whether conduct constitutes an offense or as to the existence, meaning or application of the law determining the elements of an offense is an element of such offense, unless the definition of the offense or the Code so provides.

This tells us, in very contorted language, that unless a statute specifically states that you are not in violation of the law if you are unaware of the existence of that particular statute, that knowledge of the law is not an element of an offense under it. (Eg: it affirms that ignorance is not a defense.)

and

2.04 Ignorance or Mistake.

(3) A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when:

(a) the statute or other enactment defining the offense is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to the conduct alleged; or

(b) he acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in (i) a statute or other enactment; (ii) a judicial decision, opinion or judgment; (iii) an administrative order or grant of permission; or (iv) an official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration or enforcement of the law defining the offense.

This lays out two specific situations where ignorance of the law IS an acceptable defense. The first (a) is a situation in which the defendant is unaware of the law because it has not been published or otherwise made reasonably available to the general public. And the second (b) is a case in which an individual misunderstood the law because of an official statement which was in error, one example of which would be if one was told (incorrectly) by a police officer that it was permissible to do a certain thing despite that thing being forbidden by law.

Of course, none of this is relevant to Ms. Turnbull's chicken, since she openly admits knowing that she was in violation of the law, and is on record as having ignored a warning from the police to comply with it prior to remediation having occurred.

Still trying to understand how the Police Chief of Atwater, MN acted maliciously or improperly...

And the second (b) is a case in which an individual misunderstood the law because of an official statement which was in error, one example of which would be if one was told (incorrectly) by a police officer that it was permissible to do a certain thing despite that thing being forbidden by law.

“I’m like, ‘Miss what you doing? You are hurting my arm,’ ” Hernandez said. “She just was telling me to put my hands behind my back, but ‘I’m like trying to understand what are you are arresting me for. Can you please tell me?’.”

Moments after refusing to comply to an order to put both his hands behind his back, a half-dozen uniformed officers appeared and dog-piled on Hernandez, punching and kicking and dragging him onto the sidewalk.

Cellphone video backs up his account of the assault.

“They was taking turns on me. One kicks me, he steps back. Another one comes to punch me and he steps back,” Hernandez said. “And another one comes and grabs my arm and hits me like 10 times with the baton. Another one comes and pepper sprayed me, they were taking turns like a gang.”

The video shows a subdued Hernandez then being dragged to a waiting patrol car.

Photos show Hernandez covered in bruises and scrapes after the incident.

Hernandez was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, however the Bronx DA declined to prosecute the case.

Good thing the DA brought up charges against the officers, oh wait, no that doesn't happen.

man arrested for legally recording military exercises in public streets.

[ll]5ad_1410150009[/ll]

Oh sorry, that's not that miltary in tanks and body armor violating your rights, it's just your local police. My bad. Of course this is an isolated incident. Police aren't actually militarized and they certainly don't arrest people for video recording them standing on thier own private property.

Evans was transported to the Montgomery County Jail, where her attorney said the excessive force incident occurred.

In a video of the incident, Evans can be seen handcuffed and being held by Sgt. Eric Banks. In the incident report, Banks wrote that Evans used her legs to press against the wall and vaulted towards him. The deputy then guided her to the ground to prevent Evans from falling on him, which resulted in Evans hitting her face and torso on the floor, according to the report.

Evans suffered multiple facial fractures and a possible contusion to the inferior left frontal lobe of her brain after being slammed on the floor, Bly said.

The sheriff’s office told Evans her injuries were self-inflicted by either doing a back flip off a bench or falling down a flight of stairs, Bly said, adding that it took nearly three months for Evans to learn she was injured while being booked into the jail.

I'd like to see that drunk girl, in custody, do a backflip off a bench.

A tiny Florida town located between Jacksonville and Gainesville with a national reputation as a speed trap is under fire for a ticket-writing scandal, after police said they were ordered by their chief to write 12 tickets per 12-hour shift, or face punishment.

Waldo City Council suspended two police supervisors, Cpt. Kenneth Smith and Police Chief Mike Szabo, after learning of the allegations, The Associated Press reported.

Mr. Szabo was the chief accused by police of ordering the traffic ticket quotas. After he was suspended, Mr. Smith was put into his position — but then officers complained he mishandled evidence, AP reported. The City Council then suspended Mr. Smith.

Waldo has long held a reputation as a massive speed trap. In one small portion of the highway that runs through Waldo, the speed limit starts at 65 miles per hour, then drops to 55, then falls to 45, then goes back to 55, then back down to 45, then to 55 again and finally, to 35, AP reported.